Apple Watch stuck in limbo as developers wait for wider adoption

[parsehtml]<p><img src='http://www.techspot.com/images2/news/header/2014/11/apple-watch.jpg' class='intro-image' /></p><p>The Apple Watch was a long-anticipated piece of technology. Smartwatches, like tablets, have been sought after as the next big thing. Manufacturers and developers alike hope it will be the next revolution, providing improved connectivity and, more importantly, a brand new unsaturated market into which they (and their profits) might expand. However, things have been somewhat stymied for this product category. No one seems to be sure what the ultimate purpose of a smartwatch is. It&#39;s too small, too weak, and drains power too quickly to be an independent replacement for your smartphone. Anything it can do, your phone can do better and with much more screen real estate to play with.</p>
<p>Manufacturers played with the form factor for a period of time before Google made a concerted effort to support smartwatches with its Android Wear platform, but even that didn&#39;t quite take off. Many looked to Apple to revolutionize smartwatches and popularize yet another smart device. Their efforts, however, don&#39;t appear to be particularly compelling or even unique.</p>
<p>The Apple Watch requires an iOS device. It&#39;s not a standalone device. And its app support, though numerous, doesn&#39;t include big names like Facebook or Snapchat. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/20/technology/personaltech/apple-waits-as-app-developers-study-whos-buying-its-watch.html">New York Times</a> recently ran an article painting a somewhat bleak picture for the watch. The twenty most popular iPhone apps do not have an Apple Watch equivalent. Its small size and relatively small userbase (a mere three to five million based on analyst projections, nowhere near the market of iOS or Android in general) make it difficult to justify a release in <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/26/dont-hold-your-breath-for-the-apple-watch-snapchat-app/">several cases</a>. Developers seem to be waiting with baited breath to see how the watch will do, and the watch needs developers to support it in order to draw attention. It&#39;s a vicious cycle that requires someone to make a leap of faith.</p>
<p>This Tuesday, <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-to-watch-for-in-apples-earnings-2015-07-20">Apple will report</a> their third-quarter earnings. The company has been quiet on the subject of watch sales and will be rolling it into the category of &quot;other&quot; to prevent reporting on the platform specifically. This leads some speculation about the overall success of the device.</p>
<p>Apple is a name with a dedicated fanbase; consumers line up for days at a time in the hopes of being the first to own their latest iDevice. The name alone may very well carry the watch past the initial hump, creating a user base attractive enough for developers to start paying attention to the watch. The smartwatch form factor, though, is rather constraining. As much as major players like Apple, Google, and Samsung might want the market to explode, consumers may decide they&#39;re happy enough with their smartphones.</p><p><a rel='alternate' href='http://www.techspot.com/news/61451-apple-watch-stuck-limbo-developers-wait-wider-adoption.html' target='_blank'>Permalink to story.</a></p><p class='permalink'><a rel='alternate' href='http://www.techspot.com/news/61451-apple-watch-stuck-limbo-developers-wait-wider-adoption.html'>http://www.techspot.com/news/61451-apple-watch-stuck-limbo-developers-wait-wider-adoption.html</a></p>[/parsehtml]

Smart watches are an interesting idea, but you can't really DO anything with them. I also already have a "smart watch" with it, it's called a phone. I don't need a second device telling me what time it is or if I got a text or not. Smart watches, to me at least, seem like an answer to a problem that never existed.

Smart watches are an interesting idea, but you can't really DO anything with them. I also already have a "smart watch" with it, it's called a phone. I don't need a second device telling me what time it is or if I got a text or not. Smart watches, to me at least, seem like an answer to a problem that never existed.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them an answer to a problem that never existed. Hell, the original Iphone fits that description.

Smartwatches are supposed to save you time. Instead of pulling your phone out of your pocket, you now only have to look at your wrist. The problem is the screen is small, battery life is short, and charging another device adds hassle. For a device that's built on the premise of saving time, most smart watches do an awful job of fulfilling that mission.

I think that smartwatches need an extremely long battery life, large screen (larger than what we have now), and a better way to control them.

Smart watches are an interesting idea, but you can't really DO anything with them. I also already have a "smart watch" with it, it's called a phone. I don't need a second device telling me what time it is or if I got a text or not. Smart watches, to me at least, seem like an answer to a problem that never existed.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them an answer to a problem that never existed. Hell, the original Iphone fits that description.

Smartwatches are supposed to save you time. Instead of pulling your phone out of your pocket, you now only have to look at your wrist. The problem is the screen is small, battery life is short, and charging another device adds hassle. For a device that's built on the premise of saving time, most smart watches do an awful job of fulfilling that mission.

I think that smartwatches need an extremely long battery life, large screen (larger than what we have now), and a better way to control them.

Click to expand...

Don't you think that's an extremely expensive way to shave off nano seconds and save the wearer .0005 KJ in energy?
Lets face it, for now they're just a bragging right and have no use, not one of them.

Don't you think that's an extremely expensive way to shave off nano seconds and save the wearer .0005 KJ in energy?
Lets face it, for now they're just a bragging right and have no use, not one of them.

Click to expand...

It is an extremely expensive way to save time, assuming you actually save any time. Wasting time looking at your wrist when you realize that you have to look at your phone to get any idea of what's going on, charging the watch, ect.

I have a watch on my arm that tells the time. The only other function that I might possibly want is a touch pad controller for a TV or similar functions. I do not want a slow alternative to my PC that I have to squint to read and charge every night.

Opportunity lost - a watch that tells you of a message and not unpleasantly vibrates, limit which messengers Do vibrate, and the name of the messenger displays in an otherwise beautiful normal watch that lasts a year on an easily replaceable battery, That might hold some benefit as you could check if the message was Remotely important while you are interacting with real humans and don't wanna drag out your phone or leave it buzzing across the desk as IMs come in, making them feel secondary to your all-important incoming information..

clik, change the tiny efficient display to health for whatever you want to measure there..
clik, to other things beyond my ability to imagine that you need seconds-response to on your wrist instead
of taking out your phone..

Just Not another battery-pigg with no doubt 500PPI rez as that sounds so good in the ad with myriad features near impossible to use with the normal index finger as the selector.. anyone still have their calculator watch complete with stylus so you could press the digits?